Commentary Thread

[Uppercut]

Also listened to Vaughan presenting 606 'six duck six'. Analysis is mostly things like

"169 runs, a margin bigger than Watson's front pad"
"They [Australia] did look like Dad's Army, they looked old. We're seeing these seagulls outside here in Cardiff, they look like vultures, about to feed on the carcass of Australian cricket."

(actual quotes)

It's essentially what would happen if flibbertyjibber had his own show

I propose "Vaughaning" be used for spewing out exceptionally low-quality banter, particularly when the vaughaner has crawled out of nowhere at the exact moment their team started winning.

 

[Furball]

On the one hand 2010-11 had Swann, but on the other hand 05 had four top class seamers. I dunno.

Flintoff, Jones, Haggard...?

 

[GIMH]

Flintoff, Jones, Haggard...?

It is of course revisionist to suggest Harmison was never top class

The 05 attack had individual highs greater than that of 10-11 (bearing in mind Broad only played two matches and only bowled in two full innings). But the 10-11 attack were probably more of a rounded group

If we look at 05, Harmison was dynamite at Lords, decent at Brum and tailed off
Jones was quiet early on and then outstanding at Old Trafford and TB
Hoggard was again quietly effective up to TB where he was mint
Freddie was awesome at all times but especially Edgbaston and The Oval

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah would tend to go with 10/11 for the persistence of their pressure. Day one Adelaide was also probably better than anything in 05, all things considered.

 

[Cabinet96]

10/11 had the two best bowlers of either attack IMO. Tremlett and Bresnan didn't have incredible careers, but they bowled outstandingly on that tour and for a year afterwards, so yeah, it probably takes it.

 

[Spark]

Yeah bowling us out for 280, given the records of half the side at Adelaide, was a pretty outstanding achievement.

 

[Furball]

It is of course revisionist to suggest Harmison was never top class

The 05 attack had individual highs greater than that of 10-11 (bearing in mind Broad only played two matches and only bowled in two full innings). But the 10-11 attack were probably more of a rounded group

If we look at 05, Harmison was dynamite at Lords, decent at Brum and tailed off
Jones was quiet early on and then outstanding at Old Trafford and TB
Hoggard was again quietly effective up to TB where he was mint
Freddie was awesome at all times but especially Edgbaston and The Oval

Haggard was also outstanding at the Oval.

I reckon Harmison, and to a lesser extent Hoggard's contribution in 2005 is over-rated. Harmison was largely junk after the first day of the series.

2010/11 we were one rescue act at Brisbane and one Johnson spell at Perth from whitewashing Australia by constantly bowling them out for less than 300.

 

[GIMH]

Haggard was also outstanding at the Oval.

I reckon Harmison, and to a lesser extent Hoggard's contribution in 2005 is over-rated. Harmison was largely junk after the first day of the series.

2010/11 we were one rescue act at Brisbane and one Johnson spell at Perth from whitewashing Australia by constantly bowling them out for less than 300.

Without Harmison we don't win at Edgbaston and we lose the series. Probably the usual 4-1 or whatever

You think their contributions are overrated but the guys who played alongside them don't. Their captain and coach didn't.

In 10-11 we were brilliant. But in 05 we took down one of the greatest batting line-ups of all-time.

There are arguments in favour of both. But there's Freddie in favour of 05, so

 

[Cabinet96]

Their 05 lineup wasn't that amazing tbh. Pretty meh middle order at that time and Hayden was poor in England in 01, so clearly his problems in the country went beyond just that attack.

 

[Spark]

Langer Hayden Ponting Martyn Clarke Katich Gilchrist is pretty amazing IMO. On paper, anyway.

 

[Uppercut]

Without Harmison we don't win at Edgbaston and we lose the series. Probably the usual 4-1 or whatever

Depends who played instead.

You think their contributions are overrated but the guys who played alongside them don't. Their captain and coach didn't.

Haha well yeah, you couldn't call it overrated if there weren't a lot of people who rated it very highly. I wouldn't mind just deferring to their judgement if Vaughan and Fletcher didn't say something completely wrong almost every time they open their mouths.

 

[Riggins]

I'd vote for 05 having the better attack just because of Simon Jones.

 

[Jono]

10/11 had the two best bowlers of either attack IMO. Tremlett and Bresnan didn't have incredible careers, but they bowled outstandingly on that tour and for a year afterwards, so yeah, it probably takes it.

Indeed. Should be judged on how they bowled, not name value. If you judge it purely on the quality of bowling, I think 10/11 shades it.

It really could go either way though, very close.

 

[GIMH]

Depends who played instead.

Well I should reword. If Harmison was trash after day one at Lord's, we wouldn't have won at Edgbaston.

Haha well yeah, you couldn't call it overrated if there weren't a lot of people who rated it very highly. I wouldn't mind just deferring to their judgement if Vaughan and Fletcher didn't say something completely wrong almost every time they open their mouths.

Well yeah, and I agree on those two and the things they say now. Especially Fletcher who I despise. But we are talking ten years ago here. When they were both actually relevant. Nobody knows better what someone brings to team than those within it, and perhaps those who faced off against it. Ask them to a man if Harmison's contributions in 05 made a difference.

 

[GIMH]

Their 05 lineup wasn't that amazing tbh. Pretty meh middle order at that time and Hayden was poor in England in 01, so clearly his problems in the country went beyond just that attack.

Pretty meh middle order at the time?

I can almost guarantee you nobody said 'meh' about that middle order at the time

And they had Gilchrist coming in at seven...

Let's not pretend they weren't a great team. Sure, Clarke hadn't established himself yet, but 'pretty meh'!!!!

Jesus

 

[Furball]

Langer Hayden Ponting Martyn Clarke Katich Gilchrist is pretty amazing IMO. On paper, anyway.

In practice it was slightly different. Hayden had been in dreadful form for 18 months, Clarke was showing signs of being found out at Test level and Katich was nowhere near being established in the side.

 

[Spark]

If they performed to their paper value every time they played no one would have had a hope of winning a Test against us, so of course they did. Still some achievement to keep that lot quiet.

 

[Furball]

Clarke did perform to his paper value that series. A talented young batsman with a propensity to give his wicket away flashing needlessly outside off stump.

 

[Cabinet96]

Pretty meh middle order at the time?

I can almost guarantee you nobody said 'meh' about that middle order at the time

And they had Gilchrist coming in at seven...

Let's not pretend they weren't a great team. Sure, Clarke hadn't established himself yet, but 'pretty meh'!!!!

Jesus

I admit I'm probably talking out of my arse, but I just feel when looking at the 4-6 of that side none of them were actually in the period which made them great, with their best days either before it, or after it. Just four tests after the Oval that they'd all been dropped.

There's probably a case of the 05 bowling attack making that seem the case more than it actually was though.

 

[Furball]

I admit I'm probably talking out of my arse, but I just feel when looking at the 4-6 of that side none of them were actually in the period which made them great, with their best days either before it, or after it. Just four tests after the Oval that they'd all been dropped.

There's probably a case of the 05 bowling attack making that seem the case more than it actually was though.

Pretty sure Damien Martyn came into that series in **** hot form; if he wasn't the world's number 1 ranked batsman going into the series then he was pretty damned close.